Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 5
  • 9
Senate rejects gay marriage ban
Topic Started: Jun 7 2006, 08:07 AM (2,303 Views)
ivorythumper
Member Avatar
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
Axtremus
Jun 8 2006, 03:25 PM
ivorythumper
Jun 8 2006, 06:19 PM
Axtremus
Jun 8 2006, 03:13 PM
So... what's your take on giving post-menopausal women the right to marriage in the first place?

The ability to procreate can be assumed for the sake of marriage given any two sexually mature persons of complementary sexuality.

The inability to pro-create can also be assumed for the sake of marriage if a person is too old, no?

Ax: I know you love the idea of social engineering -- which is why I am damned glad that you're not in charge of making laws. :wink: Given the fact that a 65 year old woman gave birth to a child last year, no your assumption cannot be maintained.
The dogma lives loudly within me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
Axtremus
Jun 8 2006, 03:53 PM
ivory,

In the state of Massachusetts, a blood test is mandatory for persons applying for marriage licenses. It's already more than the "simple prima facia observation" that you suggested. What's the harm to also include some form of fertility test? ;)

Also, why even including the "past puberty" clause if you're only aftering the "potential ability" to pre-create? The pre-puberty kids would eventual grow into it anyway, so the "potential" is always there.

The marriage "blood test" is for syphilis. The test for syphilis, rapid plasma reagin, is for screening purposes and is backed up by diagnostic tests such as a FTA-ABS, or others.

99% or better diagnostic.

Fertility testing is better than witch doctoring, but it does not approach that decision level.

Try again. You are basing your argument on bad science.
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
Axtremus
Jun 8 2006, 04:25 PM
ivorythumper
Jun 8 2006, 06:19 PM
Axtremus
Jun 8 2006, 03:13 PM
So... what's your take on giving post-menopausal women the right to marriage in the first place?

The ability to procreate can be assumed for the sake of marriage given any two sexually mature persons of complementary sexuality.

The inability to pro-create can also be assumed for the sake of marriage if a person is too old, no?

The inability to reproduce is often cited in biology as a definition of death.

How 'bout we just shoot 'em and put 'em out of their misery?... :cool:
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
ivorythumper
Jun 8 2006, 06:29 PM
Axtremus
Jun 8 2006, 03:25 PM
ivorythumper
Jun 8 2006, 06:19 PM
Axtremus
Jun 8 2006, 03:13 PM
So... what's your take on giving post-menopausal women the right to marriage in the first place?

The ability to procreate can be assumed for the sake of marriage given any two sexually mature persons of complementary sexuality.

The inability to pro-create can also be assumed for the sake of marriage if a person is too old, no?

Ax: I know you love the idea of social engineering -- which is why I am damned glad that you're not in charge of making laws. :wink: Given the fact that a 65 year old woman gave birth to a child last year, no your assumption cannot be maintained.

Still, do you not concede that there is a point in a person's life beyond which that person loses the ability, "potential" or otherwise, to procreate? Do you not oppose granting such persons the right to marriage?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Axtremus
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Jolly
Jun 8 2006, 06:29 PM
Axtremus
Jun 8 2006, 03:53 PM
ivory,

In the state of Massachusetts, a blood test is mandatory for persons applying for marriage licenses. It's already more than the "simple prima facia observation" that you suggested. What's the harm to also include some form of fertility test? ;)

Also, why even including the "past puberty" clause if you're only aftering the "potential ability" to pre-create? The pre-puberty kids would eventual grow into it anyway, so the "potential" is always there.

The marriage "blood test" is for syphilis. The test for syphilis, rapid plasma reagin, is for screening purposes and is backed up by diagnostic tests such as a FTA-ABS, or others.

99% or better diagnostic.

Fertility testing is better than witch doctoring, but it does not approach that decision level.

Try again. You are basing your argument on bad science.

Jolly,

Let's back up a bit: Do you agree with ivorythumper's position that the "potential ability to procreate" should be a pre-requisite for marriage between two persons?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

To jump in, it's a pre-requisite IMO for the type of marriage, yes. Sure some heterosexual couples are unable to have a kid, but do you damn the whole commuinty of heterosexuals that want to marry? No.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Matt G.
Member Avatar
Middle Aged Carp
Well, sorry 89th, but it's all about procreation and protecting children and family building and keeping society going. If you're not going to have children (whether it's "can't" or "won't"), you shouldn't get married. Married heterosexuals without children contribute nothing to society. At least, that's all I can glean from all the rantings here.

Besides, some say that the reason homosexuals can't marry is because they are incapable of having children. Damning the whole lot? Well, it sure seems to run both ways, no?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

Quote:
 
Married heterosexuals without children contribute nothing to society.


So? You don't damn the whole lot of heterosexuals just because a few can't have kids.

Quote:
 
Besides, some say that the reason homosexuals can't marry is because they are incapable of having children. Damning the whole lot? Well, it sure seems to run both ways, no?


No, heterosexuals CAN have kids...most of them.

Homosexuals, 100% of them, can NOT have kids.

So, it's not the same thing.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Homosexuals can reproduce, so heaven knows what this case is built on. But because for some reason we seem to be pretending they cannot ok, let go down that route:

Thought experiment time.

Ok so there is a worldwide pandemic of a virus that knocks out reproductive ability. Because of fears of infection, those who have been infected tend to congregate among themselves. (ala HIV community). Further to monitor the spread of the infection a database of those who carry the virus is set up.

All of category X (those who are infected) are unable to reproduce, do we allow them to marry?

It's true that catagory X is just a subcatagory of heterosexuality or homosexuality or bisexuality, but then heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality are just a subcatagory of humanity.

If one argues that most heterosexuals can reproduce therefore we should let the ones who can't reproduce (infected or not) marry we could equally argue that most human beings can reproduce therefore we should the ones who can't (homosexual or not), marry.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

Quote:
 
Homosexuals can reproduce, so heaven knows what this case is built on.


We are talking about what type of couples should marry. A homosexual couple can not reproduce.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
Axtremus
Jun 8 2006, 06:59 PM
Jolly
Jun 8 2006, 06:29 PM
Axtremus
Jun 8 2006, 03:53 PM
ivory,

In the state of Massachusetts, a blood test is mandatory for persons applying for marriage licenses. It's already more than the "simple prima facia observation" that you suggested. What's the harm to also include some form of fertility test? ;)

Also, why even including the "past puberty" clause if you're only aftering the "potential ability" to pre-create? The pre-puberty kids would eventual grow into it anyway, so the "potential" is always there.

The marriage "blood test" is for syphilis. The test for syphilis, rapid plasma reagin, is for screening purposes and is backed up by diagnostic tests such as a FTA-ABS, or others.

99% or better diagnostic.

Fertility testing is better than witch doctoring, but it does not approach that decision level.

Try again. You are basing your argument on bad science.

Jolly,

Let's back up a bit: Do you agree with ivorythumper's position that the "potential ability to procreate" should be a pre-requisite for marriage between two persons?

I'd add a word...the "natural" ability to procreate.

89th is correct...people who are homosexual cannot procreate by standard means.

And they do procreate by normal means, how can they fit the definition of homosexual?

Which brings us back to my point...you want special treatment for a supposedly agrieved group that cannot even sufficiently define themselves...that's a recipe for disaster if I ever saw one.
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rick Zimmer
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
Jolly
Jun 9 2006, 05:50 AM
Which brings us back to my point...you want special treatment for a supposedly agrieved group that cannot even sufficiently define themselves...that's a recipe for disaster if I ever saw one.

Please define for me the "special treatment" they are seeking.
[size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Matt G.
Member Avatar
Middle Aged Carp
OK, so we're all for allowing the state to grant simple and inexpensive access to a large body of rights based on the petitioners' potential to reproduce. This seems a fitting reward, as any society depends on its members' reproductive capacity to continue existing. Why stop at rewarding potential for reproduction? The state can also promote other societal "goods" by rewarding other forms of potential among its citizens.

It's best we start with the youngest, so that their potential is rewarded early. So, why not reward the potential to earn high marks with reduced-cost lunches. Sure, those children without this potential can still get lunch, they just have to pay more for it. (Oh, and those kids with the potential for high grades don't have to actually make high marks.) Next, we can reward leadership potential by granting them discounts for textbooks. Kids without leadership potential get to pay full price. The rewards can be endless, because we don't have to pay any attention to what actually happens, it's only the potential that matters. It would soon come to pass that there would be supposed prima facie indicators of intellectual or leadership potentials.

Later in life, employers could base pay rates on employees' potential for productivity rather than their actual performance.

Now, removing the tongue from my cheek, I find the notion of rewarding potential anything particularly pernicious. The rewards (in this case the rights and privileges accorded married couples) should only be given to those who have actually produced the supposed societal "good". It does little to talk out of both sides of one's mouth, extolling the virtue of rewarding the common good of fostering families, while ignoring that we are rewarding not the actual fostering of family units, but the potential to create one. Many of the people who enjoy the rewards granted based on this potential make a conscious choice to remain childless, some are unsuccessful despite trying, and still others have lost their childbearing potential either through aging or medical conditions.

To speak of the potential still existing for a "miracle" despite any of the foregoing displays a rather cavalier disregard for biological science when it doesn't fit one's position. There is only one "miracle" birth to which I give any credence, and it happened over 2000 years ago. Notably, that one only required a single human.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

Matt, I think you're reading too much into the word "potential". The government doesn't reward "having potential", but it looks to who inherently has potential. It's a fine line, but a clear one. Society looks to see which types of couples reproduce. Since the dawn of time, the only couple that has reproduced is a heterosexual couple.

Your analogy with the school kids doesn't work. For example, society doesn't allow people that have driving disabilities (retarded, blind, etc) to get a drivers license. Thus, society is "rewarding" those who inherently have potential to be eligible to obtain a drivers license. The government isn't saying blind people aren't bad, but that there is no need to allow them to obtain a license, since it cant be used.

This ties in with what Ivory is saying - that the government allows licenses (read: marriage) to people that inherently have the ability to drive (reproduce). Sure some couples can't reproduce, just as some drivers can't pass the drivers test. But that doesn't mean you eliminate the whole idea of heterosexual marriage (drivers license), because some people can't reproduce (pass the drivers test).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rick Zimmer
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
The 89th Key
Jun 9 2006, 06:42 AM
Matt, I think you're reading too much into the word "potential". The government doesn't reward "having potential", but it looks to who inherently has potential. It's a fine line, but a clear one. Society looks to see which types of couples reproduce. Since the dawn of time, the only couple that has reproduced is a heterosexual couple.

Your analogy with the school kids doesn't work. For example, society doesn't allow people that have driving disabilities (retarded, blind, etc) to get a drivers license. Thus, society is "rewarding" those who inherently have potential to be eligible to obtain a drivers license. The government isn't saying blind people aren't bad, but that there is no need to allow them to obtain a license, since it cant be used.

This ties in with what Ivory is saying - that the government allows licenses (read: marriage) to people that inherently have the ability to drive (reproduce). Sure some couples can't reproduce, just as some drivers can't pass the drivers test. But that doesn't mean you eliminate the whole idea of heterosexual marriage (drivers license), because some people can't reproduce (pass the drivers test).

But neither do we give the right to drive to those who cannot pass the test.

Thus, under your logic, Issac, we should not give the right to marriage to any who have no potential to reproduce (heterosexual or homosexual) and we would remove the right if the couple becomes incapable of reproducing, just as we take away drivers licenses from those who show they may know how the rules (pass the test) but prove themselves incapable of following them.

The logic of using reproduction and/or the potential of it as a basis for marriage and as justification to include ALL heterosxuals in marriage simply does not stand.
[size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
[Sorry Matt must interject, was falling asleep and calculations need doing, pointing out 89ths sillyness is always a sure fire way of waking up]

Quote:
 

The government doesn't reward "having potential", but it looks to who inherently has potential. It's a fine line, but a clear one


If by "clear" you mean completely incoherent, then i'm with you.

Quote:
 

Society looks to see which types of couples reproduce.


Well clearly sterile "types" of couples don't reproduce, never have never will. Therefore there should be no state sanctioning of marriage between people of known sterility. If you are sterile you should not marry, infact the very concept of sterile couples marrying is meaningless as marriage is defined in terms of engendering children, so sterile couples you should not think about marriage, you should not argue that the state should accept your 'marriage' because we know the word cannot be applied to you.

Quote:
 

Since the dawn of time, the only couple that has reproduced is a heterosexual couple.


Err i think you'll find that's nonsense, for most of the time life has reproduced through binary fission. Further there have been and continue to be hermaphroditic species.

Quote:
 

For example, society doesn't allow people that have driving disabilities (retarded, blind, etc) to get a drivers license.


I wonder why that might be hmm maybe it's because they'll damage other drivers.

Oh i see so we don't let homosexuals marry because if they did theywould career out of controll and damage heterosexuals who do marry, right ok yes yes i see your point now.

Quote:
 

This ties in with what Ivory is saying - that the government allows licenses (read: marriage) to people that inherently have the ability to drive (reproduce).


Except it doesn't. The government doesn't give two hoots whether you have the ability to reproduce or not. Witness the fact that i can go with a loud speaker to any government agency and inform them all of my inability to have children, my intense dislike of all children, the fact that I have chopped off my sexual organs, and they won't care. They will still sign my marriage certificate.

Quote:
 

Sure some couples can't reproduce, just as some drivers can't pass the drivers test.


[Edit Rick's point is more lucid]

Some couples of which one has a penis and one has a vagina cannot reproduce, fullstop, they have no potential to reproduce, they have no reproductive ability at all, fullstop. If we are pretending that in 2006 marriage is based on children then homosexuals (a subset of the human race who cannot reproduce with the people they love) have as much right as those heterosexuals born infertile (a subset of the human race who cannot reproduce fullstop) to marry.

Now you can argue logistics - it's easy to recognise homosexuals, it's not easy to recognise infertile heterosexuals and so the filthy heathens slip under the radar, but it doesn't alter the point which is that _if you could recognise them_ then you would be in favour of denying them marriage. Correct?

Edit: Ah Rick you've made the same point. - too slow, too slow.
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

Rick, it wasn't the best analogy (mine never are), but my point is the same: we don't eliminate drivers licenses altogether just because some people who are inherently able to drive, can't. The only way to remedy that in heterosexual couples is to test each couple's fertility first, which is obviously not practical, but you wouldn't eliminate the whole institution of marriage between heterosexual couples - the only type of couple that can reproduce - just because some of those couples are infertile.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Moonbat
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
But if you knew, if it was easy to tell then you would be in favour of disallowing infertile couples marriage?
Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rick Zimmer
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
The 89th Key
Jun 9 2006, 07:23 AM
It wasn't the best analogy (mine never are), but my point is the same: we don't eliminate drivers licenses altogether just because some people who are inherently able to drive, can't. The only way to remedy that in heterosexual couples is to test each couple's fertility first, which is obviously not practical, but you wouldn't eliminate the whole institution of marriage between heterosexual couples - the only type of couple that can reproduce - just because some of those couples are infertile.

Has anyone argued for the elimination of the institution of marriage?

Even those who want to see government out of the business of licensing marriage as a civil act have not argued for this.

Indeed, this discussion is really about expanding the institution of marrige. To me, this is a good thing since I happen to think marriage is a good for the society because I think stable families -- heterosexually or homosexually based -- are good for society.
[size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

MB:

Quote:
 
Now you can argue logistics - it's easy to recognise homosexuals, it's not easy to recognise infertile heterosexuals and so the filthy heathens slip under the radar, but it doesn't alter the point which is that _if you could recognise them_ then you would be in favour of denying them marriage. Correct?


Glad to have helped you stay awake. ;)

Yes, I was afraid you wouldn't hit on this point. It's easy to recognize that homosexuals can't naturally reproduce, since it's 100% all the time, not possible.

Secondly, if you were to eliminate marriage for sterile couples, that wouldn't be realistic. No one would reveal the status of their fertility and the law would then be futile.

However, since I'm a fan of hypotheticals, if you DID know a couple was infertile, you shouldn't not let them marry for two reasons:

1) Marriage is for heterosexual couples - regardless of fertility. Sure a main talking point is that this is based on their ability to reproduce, but the law isn't defined by it's rationale, it's defined by it's definition - one man and one women - inspired by reproduction, but not defined by it.

2) Since it's quite obvious that the best environment for growing children is in a stable man/woman house (generally), then adoption would be an easy opportunity for those infertile couples, since they would still have the dynamic of a fertile heterosexual couple.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
Rick Zimmer
Jun 9 2006, 07:55 AM
Jolly
Jun 9 2006, 05:50 AM
Which brings us back to my point...you want special treatment for a supposedly agrieved group that cannot even sufficiently define themselves...that's a recipe for disaster if I ever saw one.

Please define for me the "special treatment" they are seeking.

I already have, keep up. :tongue:
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rick Zimmer
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
The 89th Key
Jun 9 2006, 07:31 AM
1) Marriage is for heterosexual couples - regardless of fertility. Sure a main talking point is that this is based on their ability to reproduce, but the law isn't defined by it's rationale, it's defined by it's definition - one man and one women - inspired by reproduction, but not defined by it.


Now, Isaac, you know the entire point of this discussion is to find out why it is reserved to heterosexuals. Your response is simply saying it is reserved to them because it is. It does not answer the question of why.

Quote:
 
2) Since it's quite obvious that the best environment for growing children is in a stable man/woman house (generally), then adoption would be an easy opportunity for those infertile couples, since they would still have the dynamic of a fertile heterosexual couple.


Even if one grants your premise that the best enviroment is a stable man/woman household, this ignores the fact that society allows children to be raised by a multitude of households, including in households where one or both of the parents are gay. So, how does this argue against allowing homosexuals the right to marry?
[size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rick Zimmer
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
Jolly
Jun 9 2006, 07:31 AM
Rick Zimmer
Jun 9 2006, 07:55 AM
Jolly
Jun 9 2006, 05:50 AM
Which brings us back to my point...you want special treatment for a supposedly agrieved group that cannot even sufficiently define themselves...that's a recipe for disaster if I ever saw one.

Please define for me the "special treatment" they are seeking.

I already have, keep up. :tongue:

If I recall your answer, it basically came down to what is routine and a given for some is special for others.

How does the routine for heterosexuals become special for homosexuals?
[size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

Quote:
 
Now, Isaac, you know the entire point of this discussion is to find out why it is reserved to heterosexuals. Your response is simply saying it is reserved to them because it is. It does not answer the question of why.


I didn't say it is, because it is. I said that it's reserved for heterosexuals, because they are the only type of couple that can have children.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rick Zimmer
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
The 89th Key
Jun 9 2006, 07:57 AM
Quote:
 
Now, Isaac, you know the entire point of this discussion is to find out why it is reserved to heterosexuals. Your response is simply saying it is reserved to them because it is. It does not answer the question of why.


I didn't say it is, because it is. I said that it's reserved for heterosexuals, because they are the only type of couple that can have children.

Which brings us back to the logical conclusion that heterosexuals who cannot have children should not be allowed to marry -- round and round and round we go.

So, do you want to explain to me again why you think sterile heterosexuals should be allowed to marry when you have said that the reason people are allowed to marry is because they can have children?
[size=4]Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul -- Benedict XVI[/size]
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create your own social network with a free forum.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 5
  • 9